The High Court gave its ruling yesterday in the case of Discover (Northampton) Limited and others v Debenhams Retail Limited and others [2019] EWHC 2441 (Ch), rejecting four of the five grounds on which the Applicants disputed the validity of the company's Creditors Voluntary Arrangement ("CVA"), which was approved by creditors in May 2019.

Following an expedited trial, the High Court has rejected an application brought by a group of landlords known as the Combined Property Control Group (“CPC”) to challenge the company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by Debenhams Retail Limited (“Debenhams”).

CPC challenged the CVA on five grounds. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Norris, held that four of the five grounds failed and directed certain “Forfeiture Restraint Provisions” be removed from the CVA as a result of the fifth.

Can a CVA bind a landlord in respect of future rents? Is the landlord a creditor in respect of future rent? What about the right to forfeit; can a CVA modify that right? Is compromising rent under a CVA automatically unfair to landlords when other trade creditors are paid in full?

These were some of the points considered by the Court in determining whether the Debenhams’ CVA (which had been challenged by landlords) should fail.

One point of particular interest is whether reducing rents below market value in a CVA is automatically unfair to landlords?

In this week's update: a distribution was valid despite discrepancies in the accounts justifying the dividend and an examination of vexatious resolutions.

Court considers whether demerger by dividend was valid (part 2)

In today’s insecure commercial lettings market, it is becoming increasingly common for landlords to take a significant rent deposit when granting a new lease and to enforce their rights under the rent deposit deed. This is putting the drafting and enforcement of rent deposit deeds under scrutiny. How do the parties to a rent deposit deed protect their positions when the landlord assigns the reversion to the lease?

Seafood Shack Ltd v Alan Darlow [2019] EWHC 1567 (Ch)

A lease of restaurant premises was granted to a company that did not exist; there was no legal basis for correcting the lease, and the similarly-named company claiming rights was held to have none.

Section 127 of the Insolvency Act renders void any disposition of property by a company made in the period between presentation of the winding up petition and the making of a winding up order on that petition unless the court orders otherwise. Guidance on applications for validation orders is given in the Insolvency Practice Direction (“PD”).

On 12 June 2019, after a tense meeting with landlords and creditors, the company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) proposed by the Arcadia Group Ltd (Arcadia) were approved by the requisite majority of creditors, allowing the group to restructure its balance sheet and stave off, at least for the time being, a liquidation or administration proceeding.

Arcadia's decline

If you own a flat, it may be tempting to rent it out whilst you are on holiday or for longer, to earn some extra income. However, a recent court case held that renting a flat out on Airbnb breached the tenant’s lease.

Judgment of Kerr J. in Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v Punj Lloyd Limited [2018] EWHC 3776